Shout Box

Who's Online
1 registered (1 invisible), 14 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 5 of 22 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 21 22 >
Topic Options
#59606 - 08/12/11 05:13 PM Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! [Re: Kent]
TerrieM Online   content
addict

Registered: 05/14/09
Posts: 425
Loc: Gunks in Summer, Southwest in ...
"Also despicable is your willingness to throw this landowner under the bus in an effort to make fun of me. And so it goes between climbers and private landowners in the Nears, and elsewhere around the Preserve."

....not unlike when you stated that a landowner was dining on pet food due to being financially strapped(because of MP zoning laws manipulations...

"Remember the Mohonk Preserve used a quit claim deed to try and take part of this neighbors land."

I had heard that the sale was in discussion and the man was told there was a problem with the title which he would need to sort out before negotiations could proceed.


On an aside:

Kent - I am not very educated when it comes to real estate and most other municipal workings. I've looked up the term "Quit Claim" and from everything I have seen it does not seem to be this evil trap you are inferring. It isn't (from what I understand) a title transfer.

Could you please take some time to explain how the quit claim puts into act some force that irrevocably transfers land holdings (which is the impression that was made to me when first reading about the use of such a thing from you). Absolutely no beed to be so specific as to particular case(and actually prefer you do not take advantage of this opportunity to do so).

Top
#59607 - 08/12/11 06:35 PM Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! [Re: TerrieM]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Terrie, I don't see how Mim throwing the Nears landowner under the bus, by publicly discussing her opinion of the landowner's mental health status, is at all like me talking about a landowner whose financial well being is compromised by the zoning law. Many people know exactly who the Nears landowner is that Mim is referring to. No one knows who I'm using as an example for the consequences of the zoning law.

Regarding the QCD. I've explained it in detail before so I'll be brief here. Every time land changes hands the deeds are transcribed by hand. Scrivener's errors occur and the deeds don't reflect exactly what is owned. A landowner, or anyone for that matter, can go to the seller and buy a QCD, wherein the seller quits any claim they might still have to the land to the QCD buyer. That's one way of fixing a scrivener's error. The MP approached the party who sold the land to the current owner and explained they might still have an interest in the land. For $1, I believe, the MP acquired a QCD for any interest the seller may have still held in the land. They then filed that QCD with the Ulster County Clerk's office thereby creating a competing chain of title to part of the land in question.

The Mohonk Preserve knew full well that the land hadn't been subdivided at the time of sale as any subdivision would have required planning board approval and there would have been a public record.

I've talked with the current landowner about this, with the seller, and also with the MP exec director. The current landowner is irate, and should be. The seller regrets entertaining the MPs proposal. The MP refers to this QCD as a mistake. I guess that would be kind of like how cheating on an exam is a mistake. It only becomes a mistake when you get caught.

Using a QCD in this same way, to exploit a scrivener's error in a deed to create a competing chain of title, was central to the Shawangunk Conservancy lawsuit against Mike Fink and Karen Pardini in The Clove Valley that has received so much press over the years. The Shawangunk Conservancy lost. They appealed and lost again. They appealed again and lost a third time.

Using QCDs in this way is, as I've said previously, despicable. But the Mohonk Preserve and the Shawangunk Conservancy seem to think it's ok if they can get away with it.


Edited by Kent (08/12/11 06:58 PM)

Top
#59615 - 08/13/11 03:08 PM Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! [Re: Kent]
RangerRob Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 06/06/00
Posts: 3765
Loc: Ulster County, NY
I too am not very knowledgable when it comes to these legal trappings of real estate. I know quitclaim deeds do have the reputation of being underhanded and sneaky. Can someone here better learned about it than me please explain why they even exist in the current laws, if they are in fact so underhanded and devious. Are there non underhanded and non devious ways to use a quitclaim deed?

Back on topic though. Which town in Ulster County has the highest combined property and school tax rate? I'm wagering New Paltz and Gardiner are waaaayyy up there. How does that correlate with the amount of preserved lands in those townships. I wonder if there is a correlation between preserved lands and taxes.

Top
#59618 - 08/13/11 03:17 PM Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! [Re: RangerRob]
retroscree Online   content
enthusiast

Registered: 06/29/11
Posts: 397
Originally Posted By: RangerRob
I know quitclaim deeds do have the reputation of being underhanded and sneaky. Can someone here better learned about it than me please explain why they even exist in the current laws, if they are in fact so underhanded and devious. Are there non underhanded and non devious ways to use a quitclaim deed?

Like slmost anything else, they can be used for good or evil. Here's a brief explanation.

Top
#59705 - 08/21/11 02:28 AM Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! [Re: RangerRob]
SkurdeyCat Offline
newbie

Registered: 08/14/03
Posts: 40
Loc: PA
First of all, thanks to all regular contributors on both sides of this and related discussions/arguments for at least a year of great entertainment.

Secondly, I've been coming to the Gunks 7-10 times a year for more than ten years, and by a generous estimate, I have spent less than $200 in the town of Gardiner in that whole time, sorry, but until Gardiner offers some accommodation options, whether (affordable) hotel or nice camping, I have no reason to spend money there. On the other hand I'm sure I have spent many thousands of dollars in New Paltz. If this country wasn't so afraid of Big Government, and so keen on local control of everything, maybe Gardiner could get a share of my money.

Anyway, I may be wrong, but it's likely the primary reason the MP even exists is to save the MMH from paying taxes. If this "loophole" did not exist, there might not be a Mountain House today, but if there was, climbing at the Trapps would be gone the way of Skytop.

The tax code gives this break to non-profits because society as a whole feels it's a good thing. I don't bitch that I'm "subsidizing" your school/hospital/church/fire company/food bank, so quit bitching that you're subsidizing mine.

In the end, taxes (or lack of) are a zero-sum game,money just moves around, what the government does with it isn't inherently better or worse than what you do with it, just different.

Skurdey

Top
#59707 - 08/21/11 03:53 AM Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! [Re: SkurdeyCat]
Lucander Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 04/03/09
Posts: 227
Loc: Stone Ridge, NY
Seriously folks, relax. We live in a really neat place with lots of fun things to do. We are fortunate that weekenders want to visit the region we call home.

Top
#59719 - 08/22/11 04:25 PM Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! [Re: SkurdeyCat]
TerrieM Online   content
addict

Registered: 05/14/09
Posts: 425
Loc: Gunks in Summer, Southwest in ...
Originally Posted By: SkurdeyCat
Anyway, I may be wrong, but it's likely the primary reason the MP even exists is to save the MMH from paying taxes.


I understood that the trust was formed in response to a fight to when government attempted imposing imminent domain to build a highway atop the ridge. The Smiley's understood that, being privately held land, the region would be vulnerable to such efforts in the future, and creating a land trust was the way to protect it.

As well, the Mountain House did understand that using mountain hotels as retreats was lessening in people's use of free time, and the resulting lessening of income would become problematic in supporting the land. They could easily have chosen to sell the land as opportunity decried, and realized quite nice profits, no doubt. Instead they chose conservation.


It is often said that we humans will sometimes suggest another is behaving in a certain way because it is the was WE would behave in the given situation.

Top
#59722 - 08/22/11 10:04 PM Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! [Re: TerrieM]
Advocacy group Offline
addict

Registered: 08/03/10
Posts: 653
Loc: New Paltz,Marbletown,Gardiner,...
Originally Posted By: TerrieM
Originally Posted By: SkurdeyCat
Anyway, I may be wrong, but it's likely the primary reason the MP even exists is to save the MMH from paying taxes.


I understood that the trust was formed in response to a fight to when government attempted imposing imminent domain to build a highway atop the ridge. The Smiley's understood that, being privately held land, the region would be vulnerable to such efforts in the future, and creating a land trust was the way to protect it.

As well, the Mountain House did understand that using mountain hotels as retreats was lessening in people's use of free time, and the resulting lessening of income would become problematic in supporting the land. They could easily have chosen to sell the land as opportunity decried, and realized quite nice profits, no doubt. Instead they chose conservation.


It is often said that we humans will sometimes suggest another is behaving in a certain way because it is the was WE would behave in the given situation.


Wow! Where to begin with this one..... First off it's eminent domain. Secondly, most everything else quoted is simply not true. The mountain house was broke plain and simple. But it is fun TerrieM to read your rants about What conservation is in regards to the Mountain house. I guess building a 300+ room hotel on the side of a mountain, a golf course, numerous other houses, 80 miles of roads and smiley tower is how some define conservation.

MPNA
_________________________
The MPNA is an advocacy group for adjacent neighbors of the Mohonk Preserve. In the event of a dispute with the Mohonk Preserve, we can offer assistance in obtaining experts in the following areas; Surveying, Lawyers, Title, expert witnesses, ancient document research, and Maps.

Top
#59724 - 08/22/11 11:38 PM Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! [Re: Advocacy group]
retroscree Online   content
enthusiast

Registered: 06/29/11
Posts: 397
Originally Posted By: Advocacy group
I guess building a 300+ room hotel on the side of a mountain, a golf course, numerous other houses, 80 miles of roads and smiley tower is how some define conservation.

At the time all those were built, the conservation movement in the US was barely in its infancy and didn't gain genuine traction until Teddy Roosevelt. The overriding laissez-faire position at the time held that owners of private property should be allowed to do anything they wished for their property. Few had any concept of conservation or why it might be desirable. The hotel was built in 1869. Trying to equate the modern idea of conservation with what was considered conservation then is pointless and just serves to provide you with a fallacious argument.

Top
#59727 - 08/23/11 02:38 AM Re: Taxes VS preservation...have at it! [Re: retroscree]
Mark Heyman Offline
old hand

Registered: 12/23/99
Posts: 1123
Loc: South Jersey (Pinelands)
And it left a lot more "natural" area than rows of McMansions or a highway would have. Moreover with the decline of summering in the mountains, I don't believe the area would be particularly desirable without the preserve and parks.

It is ironic that rows of McMansions would have killed the very thing that made them desirable, but like bacteria in a petri dish, or humans on earth, not all all unlikely.


Edited by Mark Heyman (08/23/11 02:42 AM)

Top
Page 5 of 22 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 21 22 >


Moderator:  webmaster 
Sponsored